Bjorn Borg is the GOAT

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

Click to expand...

I concur..I have repeated this trillion times that FEd is not even a GOAT candidate,he's barely a WEeird nosed cow..

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

Click to expand...

Of course not. Obviously, slams that he *didn't* play can't count towards his final tally (nor can the fact that he was washed up at 25 award him several more "ghost" slams), and two slams are missing from his resume, so case closed as far as I'm concerned. He's not part of the A-list (Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, and Federer) but is firmly part of the B-list, though (with Sampras and Nadal).

Obviously, slams that he *didn't* play can't count towards his final tally

Click to expand...

But it was a standard part of the culture not to play the AO back then. To make a fair comparison, if Federer had only played one AO he would have 12 majors. If he had only played one AO and also retired at age 26, he would have 9 majors.

But it was a standard part of the culture not to play the AO back then. To make a fair comparison, if Federer had only played one AO he would have 12 majors. If he had only played one AO and also retired at age 26, he would have 9 majors.

11 > 9, so Borg > Federer

Click to expand...

Your reasoning is skewed, in that there is no rule that says "GOAT candidates' achievements are to be judged at 26 years of age". We must look at their whole career, and if Borg stopped at 26, tough luck to him (otherwise, Chang could be considered the GOAT, you would just have to put the limit at 17 and several months). When you look at their slams, there is no doubt that 16 out of 4 >>>>>>> 11 out of 2.

But it was a standard part of the culture not to play the AO back then. To make a fair comparison, if Federer had only played one AO he would have 12 majors. If he had only played one AO and also retired at age 26, he would have 9 majors.

11 > 9, so Borg > Federer

Click to expand...

This is incredibly idiotic logic. Borg peaked and was winning majors much younger than Fed. Even if he had stayed on the tour, it's not likely he would have had much success past 26.

If you don't play, you can't win. Longetivity (or is this not an English word?) counts as well. Much of Agassi's legacy is due to him still performing well in 2005, even though he didn't win anything. Borg couldn't bring himself to playing once he didn't win everything anymore. So he quit, good for him, but it's not helping his tennis legacy imo

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

Click to expand...

IIRC he reached the 3rd round at AO, so lets not assume he would have won them.

Even Roger's count is essentially 3 slams (only one win at RG), so he is still 15 slams if you count only 3 slams.

Honestly, that's what I call a cool story bro. Such a riveting tale, I honestly copy and pasted it to word, saved on my hard drive, backed it up on a usb drive, drove to the bank, put the usb drive in the safe deposit box, and will leave it there until my kids turn about 12 (when they can actually state their age, and ask what it is I'm showing them), when I will pick it up, put it in an old USB drive reader and relay this cool story to them and tell them, "kids, this is what a cool story should look and sound like...not like the stories your generation tells."

Honestly, that's what I call a cool story bro. Such a riveting tale, I honestly copy and pasted it to word, saved on my hard drive, backed it up on a usb drive, drove to the bank, put the usb drive in the safe deposit box, and will leave it there until my kids turn about 12 (when they can actually state their age, and ask what it is I'm showing them), when I will pick it up, put it in an old USB drive reader and relay this cool story to them and tell them, "kids, this is what a cool story should look and sound like...not like the stories your generation tells."

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

Borg won RG-Wimby double three times(78,79,80) when Wimby was played on fast grass(unlike today's slow grass). This particular achievement certainly puts him ahead of Nadal but I'm not sure if it puts him ahead of Federer because Roger would've won on fast grass.
He's still 5 slams short of Federer so one can't conclusively say he's the GOAT.

Honestly, that's what I call a cool story bro. Such a riveting tale, I honestly copy and pasted it to word, saved on my hard drive, backed it up on a usb drive, drove to the bank, put the usb drive in the safe deposit box, and will leave it there until my kids turn about 12 (when they can actually state their age, and ask what it is I'm showing them), when I will pick it up, put it in an old USB drive reader and relay this cool story to them and tell them, "kids, this is what a cool story should look and sound like...not like the stories your generation tells."

When regarding Borg and the players of that era then the fact that nobody really played the Australian does need to be taken into account. This and the whole amateur/pro divide obviously means that simply counting Majors is insufficient.

Borg's retired young because he was burnt-out. If he had continued to play then it is hardly a given he would've won more, due to this. Keep in mind that he had won Majors for 8 years in-a-row at this stage, which is the same as Sampras and Federer. It isn't as if he would be expected to have another 3-4 years of Major wins in him.

Borg's phenomenal level on courts of all speeds is what I find most impressive. 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles on fast, low-bouncing grass and 6 wins on the slow, high-bouncing clay of Roland Garros. 3 consecutive French Open-Wimbledon doubles is one of the all-time great achievements. His weakest Major (considering he played the Australian only once) was really the US Open with 4 finals, losing to two other greats McEnroe and Connors twice each. He only ever played 4 Majors on hard and reached the final of 3 of them. By comparison, it took Federer and Nadal until their 11th Major on clay and hard respectively to win one and Sampras played 13 Majors on clay, reaching only one semi. His 22 titles on carpet also show his ability on fast courts. He had 3 years where he reached 3 Majors finals out of 3 played. The only reason his number of weeks at #1 is so low is due to the poor system. He was voted ATP Player of the Year for 3 years that he did not end as #1.

Due to Sampras' relatively poor showings on clay, I place Borg ahead of him, but behind Federer in my ranking of the greatest players of the Open era. One of the very, very best.

But it was a standard part of the culture not to play the AO back then. To make a fair comparison, if Federer had only played one AO he would have 12 majors. If he had only played one AO and also retired at age 26, he would have 9 majors.

11 > 9, so Borg > Federer

Click to expand...

Wow, I did not know that. Borg was absolutely amazing. Also he won on real grass and all those channel slams as well.

According to people on these forums....
Bjorn Borg:
- Greatest forehand, backhand, serve, serve return, volley, and overhead ever.
- Would have won the 100m, 200m, and 400m at the Olympics
- Outran a cheetah in a sprint
- Had a resting heart rate of 4 beats per minute
- Could squat 1175 pounds
- Had 0% bodyfat
- Walked on water in order to appear at the French, US Open, and Wimbledon
- A single strand of his hair could cure cancer and heart disease merely by touching it
All 100% true and verified.

According to people on these forums....
Bjorn Borg:
- Greatest forehand, backhand, serve, serve return, volley, and overhead ever.
- Would have won the 100m, 200m, and 400m at the Olympics
- Outran a cheetah in a sprint
- Had a resting heart rate of 4 beats per minute
- Could squat 1175 pounds
- Had 0% bodyfat
- Walked on water in order to appear at the French, US Open, and Wimbledon
- A single strand of his hair could cure cancer and heart disease merely by touching it
All 100% true and verified.

Click to expand...

And that would probably be a LOT less than some would think of their tennis heroes today.

Wow, I did not know that. Borg was absolutely amazing. Also he won on real grass and all those channel slams as well.

Click to expand...

Let's just say Borg was a great player. I don't think there is much argument about that.

Nadal's great as is Federer, Djokovic, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Pancho Gonzalez and many others and all of them were great tennis talents. Some people used to think Yannick Noah was such a great athlete that he should have tried the NBA. That never happened but indirectly his DNA played in the NBA in the form of his son Joakim Noah who plays for the Chicago Bulls.

To the OP: In 2009 Borg declare Roger is the greatest tennis player of all time. If you knew it all along, you wouldn't create this thread. Don't feel too bad since you are new to tennis.

Click to expand...

I think that was when Laver, Borg and Sampras were honoring Federer so what would you expect Borg to say? Sampras said the same thing but he took it back and I don't think he ever believed it. I think Sampras thinks Sampras is the GOAT. Laver said the same thing and yet he said later he would love to play Federer with a wood racquet and that he wasn't afraid of anyone with a wood racquet.

Basically I think most of these guys, including Federer believe that they themselves are the best. Nothing wrong with that because that is what drives them to be great.

Nadal always says Federer is the GOAT but you know he feels that he should beat Federer every time they play.

Bjorn Borg could have won many more slams. He defintly was better than Willander and Lendl on clay....so for those years he could have won a few more frenches.

Wimbledon....maybe 1 or 2 more if he hand't given up....McEnroe only came around in 1984. 1982 he was there for the picking and 1983 he wasn't as great. Connors was his pet dog. AO open...howerver he didn't play it so it pointless to say he will win.

Maybe had he played after 1981 then he could have bagged one or two. Should have kept going for the US open....I believed he would have scored in 1982 nd 1983.....Connors should have been beatable at that time for Borg.

Still this has never happened....he is stuck at 11 majors and will never be goat but he will be a great.

Borg is getting way too much love in this thread. An uber rival had just arrived and Borg had already been a top pro for many years and was mentally getting burned out from his long and illustrious period at the top of the sport.

Borg was worth 11 - 14 Major titles (11 Slam events and someone would have to verify which of his 3 YEC wins were considered as a Major victory , I know that when Ashe won it in 1975 it was directly referred to by commentators as his first Major since 1969).

That's it, that's all, that was his worth and that was what he was good for. What if statements are utterly bizarre given that he retired himself and was mentally tiring and also probably physically on the verge of slowly degrading. It's not like he got shot or shattered his wrists and legs in a motorcycle accident.

What can't be questioned is that Borg was a great great player and one of the more iconic legends of tennis.

But it was a standard part of the culture not to play the AO back then. To make a fair comparison, if Federer had only played one AO he would have 12 majors. If he had only played one AO and also retired at age 26, he would have 9 majors.

Honestly, that's what I call a cool story bro. Such a riveting tale, I honestly copy and pasted it to word, saved on my hard drive, backed it up on a usb drive, drove to the bank, put the usb drive in the safe deposit box, and will leave it there until my kids turn about 12 (when they can actually state their age, and ask what it is I'm showing them), when I will pick it up, put it in an old USB drive reader and relay this cool story to them and tell them, "kids, this is what a cool story should look and sound like...not like the stories your generation tells."

Bjorn Borg could have won many more slams. He defintly was better than Willander and Lendl on clay....so for those years he could have won a few more frenches.

Wimbledon....maybe 1 or 2 more if he hand't given up....McEnroe only came around in 1984. 1982 he was there for the picking and 1983 he wasn't as great. Connors was his pet dog. AO open...howerver he didn't play it so it pointless to say he will win.

Maybe had he played after 1981 then he could have bagged one or two. Should have kept going for the US open....I believed he would have scored in 1982 nd 1983.....Connors should have been beatable at that time for Borg.

Still this has never happened....he is stuck at 11 majors and will never be goat but he will be a great.

Click to expand...

who's to say Jmac wouldn't have been better if borg had been around? he's said a couple of times that he felt uninterested in the sport after borg retired, at least up until 84.

I think that was when Laver, Borg and Sampras were honoring Federer so what would you expect Borg to say? Sampras said the same thing but he took it back and I don't think he ever believed it. I think Sampras thinks Sampras is the GOAT. Laver said the same thing and yet he said later he would love to play Federer with a wood racquet and that he wasn't afraid of anyone with a wood racquet.

Basically I think most of these guys, including Federer believe that they themselves are the best. Nothing wrong with that because that is what drives them to be great.

Nadal always says Federer is the GOAT but you know he feels that he should beat Federer every time they play.

But it was a standard part of the culture not to play the AO back then. To make a fair comparison, if Federer had only played one AO he would have 12 majors. If he had only played one AO and also retired at age 26, he would have 9 majors.

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

Click to expand...

But Borg's early retirement reveals that he was lacking the qualities of a player with longevity (either physically or mentally, or both, whatever triggered his early retirement). Part of being numero uno of all-time is actually going out there and winning for more years than the other guys. Sampras had to stick around and prove at least some longevity (hence he won more slams than Borg), so did Federer, so does Nadal. A great tennis career isn't just a sprint, but a marathon too.

Borg's early retirement was also partly to do with his dispute with the atp. He played regularly in exhibition tournaments in 1982 and beat McEnroe a few times, and also beat Wilander easily on clay just before the 1982 French. borg would have been the heavy favorite in that tournament had he chosen to play

Click to expand...

True, that adds another variable to why he retired, and it may be a reasonable reason to retire. In the end though, if you don't put the runs on the board, those runs are missing. Borg probably doesn't regret it though, since there is no actual title of GOAT. It's not like he missed out on anything.

Borg's early retirement was also partly to do with his dispute with the atp. He played regularly in exhibition tournaments in 1982 and beat McEnroe a few times, and also beat Wilander easily on clay just before the 1982 French. borg would have been the heavy favorite in that tournament had he chosen to play

Borg was like a Rock Star during his time. Not only he was a great champion, but he was good looking as well. Back then, girls would go crazy over Bjorn Borg. However, this is NOT a popularity contest. Despite his popularities among the girls, Borg is NOT the GOAT!!

Borg was like a Rock Star during his time. Not only he was a great champion, but he was good looking as well. Back then, girls would go crazy over Bjorn Borg. However, this is NOT a popularity contest. Despite his popularities among the girls, Borg is NOT the GOAT!!

Click to expand...

Although, GOAT is exactly that - a popularity contest - since there is no actual objective award called 'GOAT', it is internet-made and has no wrong answer.

Did you know that Borg won 11 majors even though he retired at age 26 and only played the AO once? If he had played until age 30 and played all the AO's, he easily would have won 16 majors, and probably 20.

I think we've all gotten caught up in the excitement of watching Federer at his peak, but there is a strong case for Sampras and Nadal being his equal, and Borg being better.

Click to expand...

Borg quit the sport in his prime...not due to injury, but lacking mental fortitude, which automatically disqualifies him from GOAT consideration.

Borg's competition got better and he quit. Legacy: Quitter. Which is why Mother Marjorie gives tons of praise to players like Roger Federer who chose to stay and fight, in spite of his competitors gaining ground on him.